I have been enjoying wine for almost a year now. I would like to try and see if I would enjoy aged wine, especially since I was given good bottles of wine this past Christmas that could benefit from aging. I have found a wine at the LCBO but I don't know which vintage to try. The choice is between the 1996 & 2002 Chateau Les Ormes De Pez. Should I get the oldest? Or would the 10yr old work? They are both priced the same.

There's a difference between "aged" and "ready." I guess you could call both of those wines aged, but I'd guess the 1996 is mature and just about ready, while the 2002 is likely still improving. If you are reasonably sure of the provenance, I'd suggest the 1996.

I'd suggest the 1996, the extra six years should make a pretty big difference. 1996 was also regarded as a better vintage in Bordeaux than 2002. Robert Parker's drinking window on the 1996 wine is 2000-2014. Good luck!

If 5 or 10 years is "aged" to you, that's OK, and if 20 or more is required to be considered "aged" that's OK too, but that has nothing to do with whether the wine is ready or not. Most wine is fine at 5 years but some are only finally perfectly ready at 30 years and after.

And then, some of those that you drink at 20 years you end up wishing you'd killed at six.

The key is to figure out when you like a particular wine, which is when it's ready for you, (vintage is likely to matter quite a bit), and then to decide whether that's "aged" or not.

That said, I'd probably go with the 1996 if it's been kept decently.

"The best part is how he said the ENGLISH language. Fine irony. Use American next time."

Fowler, according to the LCBO website (here), no store has stock remaining of the 1996. However, inventory of the 1999, 2001-4 and 2006-8 can still be found.

If finances allow, I suggest procuring bottles of 1999 and a younger vintage (like 2007) to taste side by side. This should provide an education in the changes that occur as wine ages and if those changes are to your liking.